Smock v. Peerson

1931 OK 353, 300 P. 405, 149 Okla. 292, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 252
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedJune 16, 1931
Docket20896
StatusPublished

This text of 1931 OK 353 (Smock v. Peerson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Smock v. Peerson, 1931 OK 353, 300 P. 405, 149 Okla. 292, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 252 (Okla. 1931).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the court of common pleas of Tulsa county in an action wherein the plaintiff in error was defendant below. Plaintiff in error in due time served and filed his brief in full compliance with the rules of the court, but the defendant in error has wholly failed to file any brief, or to otherwise appear in this court on the merits of the cause, nor has he offered any excuse for his failure to do so.

‘'Where plaintiff in error has served and filed its brief in compliance with the rules of this court, and the defendant in error has neither filed a brief nor offered any excuse for his failure to do so, this court is not required to search the record to find some theory upon which the judgment of the trial court may be sustained, but may, where the authorities cited in the brief filed, appear reasonably to sustain the assignments of error, reverse the cause, with directions, in accordance with the prayer of the petition in error.'’ City National Bank v. Coatney, 122 Okla. 233, 253 Pac. 481.

In this case the petition in error prays that this cause be reversed, directing the court below to reverse and set aside the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant in error, and that judgment be rendered in favor of the plaintiff in error, and we find upon examination the authorities cited by plaintiff in error reasonably support the contention of the plaintiff in error, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the trial court, and direct it to vacate its former judgment and enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff in error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

City National Bank v. Coatney
1927 OK 47 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1931 OK 353, 300 P. 405, 149 Okla. 292, 1931 Okla. LEXIS 252, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smock-v-peerson-okla-1931.